| Revision as of 01:17, 16 January 2010 editBlueboar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,084 edits →Horrible Policy← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:06, 16 January 2010 edit undoDegenFarang (talk | contribs)2,116 edits →Horrible PolicyNext edit → | ||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
| ::If two sources exist this is not likely to come up. It would just be a discussion of which source was more reliable, easy fix, this policy holds up. The problem arrises when there is only one source. A reliable source, but one where an editor can unequivocally prove it wrong. Such a situation is exactly what ] was meant for. If the rules say no original research and we must keep something we know to be false in Misplaced Pages, the rules are clearly wrong. We should ignore then, change it, and apply this rule when it actually has utility. ] (]) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ::If two sources exist this is not likely to come up. It would just be a discussion of which source was more reliable, easy fix, this policy holds up. The problem arrises when there is only one source. A reliable source, but one where an editor can unequivocally prove it wrong. Such a situation is exactly what ] was meant for. If the rules say no original research and we must keep something we know to be false in Misplaced Pages, the rules are clearly wrong. We should ignore then, change it, and apply this rule when it actually has utility. ] (]) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::WP:NOR talks about the impropriety of ''adding'' information that is based on an editor's original research ... But the policy says nothing about ''removing'' demonstratably incorrect information. Also note that WP:NOR applies to article space... so original research ''may'' be discussed on an article's ''talk page'' as part of the attempt to demonstrate that the informaion is in fact incorrect. So... raise your concerns on the article talk page and if the consensus is to remove the incorrect info, then do so. ] (]) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | :::WP:NOR talks about the impropriety of ''adding'' information that is based on an editor's original research ... But the policy says nothing about ''removing'' demonstratably incorrect information. Also note that WP:NOR applies to article space... so original research ''may'' be discussed on an article's ''talk page'' as part of the attempt to demonstrate that the informaion is in fact incorrect. So... raise your concerns on the article talk page and if the consensus is to remove the incorrect info, then do so. ] (]) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::While I respect and mostly agree with your interpretation of NOR, and agree that the spirit of NOR is with regard to the insertion of information into an article, not with refuting it - many, many editors do not agree with you and use NOR to cast a wide ] net to prevent any changes to an article. In my particular recent dispute it was 3:1 against me - nobody agreed with me and everybody said the same exact thing: No original research. I am not allowed to prove a reliable source wrong. ] and the 5th Pillar (no firm rules), state otherwise - NOR is simply a guidelines-we are to use our common sense when interpreting it. Just as when interpreting ] and every other ] and ]. | |||
| :::Also, WP is a tertiary source, which means it essentially acts as a librarian guiding our readers to relevant published sources about any given topic. If you, as an anonymous Wikipedian, decide that some source is "unequivocally wrong", it should provide you with motivation to find a better source. But regardless of your convictions about "right" and "wrong", IAR cannot change WP's core mission, which is to tell our readers about what has already been reliably published by others. ] (]) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | :::Also, WP is a tertiary source, which means it essentially acts as a librarian guiding our readers to relevant published sources about any given topic. If you, as an anonymous Wikipedian, decide that some source is "unequivocally wrong", it should provide you with motivation to find a better source. But regardless of your convictions about "right" and "wrong", IAR cannot change WP's core mission, which is to tell our readers about what has already been reliably published by others. ] (]) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::That may be your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's core mission, it is not mine. According to the 5 pillars Misplaced Pages's 'core mission' is to create an encyclopedia, always be free, have a neutral point of view, interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner and that '''all other rules are not firm and should be ignored whenever they get in our way of achieving these goals'''. ] (]) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:06, 16 January 2010
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Are literary plot summaries in Misplaced Pages a special case? Do plot summaries NOT need verifiable sources?
There is a discussion going on about this at the Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard (initiated 30 Dec 2009). Here is the link to the page Misplaced Pages:Content_noticeboard#References_for_plot_summaries.3F.
Please consider weighing in if you have a view on the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy for this class of WP articles. N2e (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Short answer... Yes, plot summaries do need verifiable sources... however, in the context of a plot summary, the book, film, play, etc in question is itself a verifiable reliable primary source. This is so obvious that we usually don't require actual citation... it is assumed.
- Longer answer... However there is a huge caveat to the above... and it revolves around the question: what you mean by "plot summary"? If you mean a very basic "liniar discription of the action" in a book, play, movie, etc then you can assume a citation to the work. However, if you include any sort of analysis or conclusion in your "plot summary", then you need to cite a secondary source for that analysis or conclusion (as per WP:NOR). Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a special exception. The work itself is considered a valid source. There's a guideline on this, but I forget which one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability vs. truth
The phrase "verifiability, not truth" is clear to me, but the archives show that this view is not universally held. How about a paragraph explaining why? A quote might be helpful: "The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated.". Pointing out that truth is contested, while (our form of) verifiability is not should should help a few of our contributors to see the light. Paradoctor (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- The philosophical uncertainty of "truth" is not the reason WP focuses on "verifiability, not truth." The real reason is that truth, or accuracy, or "closeness to reality", requires research and digging which we, as Wikipedians, are not equipped and/or accredited to do. Nobody here has a published verified resume, we have no way of vetting our "staff", and no powerful legal department to verify their work and protect us when they goof.
- In other words, we are all anonymous users with unknown credentials, but we can at least find and summarize what other reliable publications have said about an issue and provide the references, because this can be verified by anyone. If there are disputes among the references, we present the information weighted by the prevailing views, i.e. neutrally, which again can be verified by anyone. Bottom line: Misplaced Pages sets as its goal to summarize neutrally what reliable publications have written about an issue, since our editors are have no known credentials or capabilities to do more than that. As a tertiary source, that's all we are expected to do anyway. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- The philosophical uncertainty serves as a reminder of the "normal" confusion, and implies that there is no solution. I.e., "truth" seems to be an essentially contested concept.
- "published verified resume": Not in the sense of being accredited to Misplaced Pages, but I think at least some contributors do have resumes. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whether the issue is reliability or feasibility, the fact is that the page lacks an explanation for the perplexed. Considering that this priciple is a major load-bearing component of Misplaced Pages, some exposition is necessary, and might even help shortening a discussion or two. Paradoctor (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" perplexing? The second half of the statement seems fairly clear to me. Blueboar (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- An example. It pops up again and again and again. You're an old hand, so you find nothing perplexing about it. But exposition is not for those who already know, but for those who don't, and who usually come in here with a lot of mistaken preconceptions about Misplaced Pages. Paradoctor (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another paragraph explaining would only obscure I feel. The real problem is that people feel stuff in Misplaced Pages needs to conform eith their preconceptions. If you can make a better soundbite that expresses the concept better and yet makes it obvious what it means to the people who say 'but this is fact, TRUTH' then please do. For such purposes the paragraph should not be made longer. We need something that puts people on the right road quickly. Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- §&%§#"%! Just killed a reply I worked on for 30 minutes. I'll take a break and mull over it some more. Paradoctor (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- You'll be wanting the Lazarus form recovery add-on for Firefox. Fences&Windows 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- That won't avail if some fricken n00b hits CTRL-A CTRL-X split seconds before saving, and then forgets that there is still the clipboard copy. |-< Paradoctor (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- You'll be wanting the Lazarus form recovery add-on for Firefox. Fences&Windows 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- §&%§#"%! Just killed a reply I worked on for 30 minutes. I'll take a break and mull over it some more. Paradoctor (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- We have an essay on the matter that could be edited or expanded:Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth. Fences&Windows 00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Paradoctor that the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is confusing. "Verifiability" is not a philosophical term. It means "able to be verified" and an easy way to prove something is able to be verified is to verify it. If there is a reliable source that makes an assertion, then by quoting that source you can reasonably write that "according to source X such and such is the case".
The problem comes from adding the term "not truth". Paradoctor is right to say that "truth" is not easy to define. And he must also be right to say it would be confusing to add more text discussing the concept of truth.
I have to say that I've never been clear why the "not truth" bit is there - other than as a stick for experienced editors to knock down inexperienced ones by saying "it's against policy to write that, but I won't be clear with you what the policy means". It's also distinctly unhelpful to describe a fundamental policy is terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is.
I think the answer is just to delete the term "not truth" from the policy. The only loss would be the confusion it leads to. It would also seem to deal with the very real issue Paradoctor raises. Hibbertson (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the policy is fine just the way it is. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Blueboar, it would be useful to have your rationale behind your conclusion. Hibbertson (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC).
- Agreed, we aren't voting. I'd like to see a reply to my counterargument to your objection. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not surprised that it gets questioned by people who are first encountering it. Its a startling concept and it should be stated in a startling manner to attract attention and demand understanding. I am glad people question it. It doesn't say "we want to avoid the truth," in fact, I think everyone would agree truth is our aim. But as a practical matter (including defining truth agreeably and precisely and determining whether certain information is true) we turn to verification as we have defined it, including the assessment of sources. Making the statement less "shocking" by removing the "not truth" would make this important concept easily missed. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- John, I've thought carefully about what you wrote, and then waited to see if anyone else would comment, but in vain. The question I keep coming back to is "What do I, as a reader of an encyclopedia, expect of it?". My answer, amongst other things such as readability, is that I expect it to be accurate. It should be correct. I don't think I would, on my own account, say that I am looking for truth. Given that I look for accuracy, and anyone can edit Misplaced Pages to say anything they want, for Misplaced Pages to meet my expectations of an encyclopedia it must actually demonstrate that it's accurate. Hence the need to provide a reliable source for each fact.
- I am not surprised that it gets questioned by people who are first encountering it. Its a startling concept and it should be stated in a startling manner to attract attention and demand understanding. I am glad people question it. It doesn't say "we want to avoid the truth," in fact, I think everyone would agree truth is our aim. But as a practical matter (including defining truth agreeably and precisely and determining whether certain information is true) we turn to verification as we have defined it, including the assessment of sources. Making the statement less "shocking" by removing the "not truth" would make this important concept easily missed. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- An explanation of the need to demonstrate accuracy is a straightforward, easy-to-understand exposition of the verifiability requirement.
- Once someone mentions "truth", you are back into the startling observation you note, and into the confusion it clearly causes for some users. Given that the natural response to "what do you look for in an encyclopedia?" is not "truth" or "the truth", wouldn't this concept be best avoided? If not, what is actually gained by referring to it (given the downside)? Hibbertson (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- @John: "startling concept": Yes, absolutely. I perfectly understand the value of paradoxical statements as rhetoric devices, and am not opposed to using them, far from it. But you can't go on a date, only to leave right after food is ordered. If we leave the newcomers to their own devices, they'll usually come to the conclusion that Misplaced Pages policy is confusing. That's a Bad Thing. Paradoctor (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that we have to mention "truth"... because too many people conflate "factually accuracy" with "truth". However, I think our short sentence explains the distinction well enough. Sure, a few people may need further explanation... but they can ask here on the talk page. The vast majority of our editors seem to get it as soon as they read the policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- "vast majority of our editors seem to get it": Paradoctor (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- "vast majority of our editors seem to get it"<ref>Blueboar, WT:Verifiability - ''Verifiability vs. truth'', paragraph 27 - pub. 16:18 6 Jan. 2010 (UTC)</ref> Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is not an appropriate reply to a request to PROVEIT. You pulled that one out of your ass, and I'm calling your bluff. Paradoctor (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- "vast majority of our editors seem to get it"<ref>Blueboar, WT:Verifiability - ''Verifiability vs. truth'', paragraph 27 - pub. 16:18 6 Jan. 2010 (UTC)</ref> Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is... I stated my opinion, you posted a citation request so I cited to where that opinion was published... As a citation, it is actually quite valid. Your correct counter should be to challenge my citation with "Not RS" (pointing out that I am not a reliable source)... I would then counter with "I am a relialbe source for a statement of my opinion, as I am the one who holds that opinion"... where upon you should counter with "but you did not state the material as an opinion, you stated it as a fact" At which point, I would then resort to wikilawyering, making the argument that content policies (such as the WP:PROVEIT), only apply to material added to article space, not policy space... and that I could have simply ignored your silly citation request but thought it would be more amusing to do it this way.
- Seriously... it should be obvious that I was simply stating my opinion. But if you would like, I will amend my comment and say: "Based on over five years of experience editing Misplaced Pages, contributing to various policy pages including this one, and assisting fellow editors by answering questions on various notice boards, my personal observation is that the vast majority of editors do indeed seem to understand our "verifiability not truth" statement, and it is my opinion that we don't need to spell it all out. Further, it is my opinion that doing so would amount to unneeded instruction creep."
- You are, of course, free to disagree with my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- "vast majority of our editors seem to get it": Paradoctor (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- O thank you, my liege and master! Since I've been so generously granted license, I'll partake of it by ... hmmm. Now I can't decide. Is it this one, or this one? Or merely this one? Oh well, I'm still in jolly season mode, just have em all. I could of course just point out that your sample suffers from severe selection bias, but where would be the fun in that? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Resources
A list of reference material for this discussion, please add arguments and comments above, not below. Otherwise, please add as you see fit.
- essay Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth
- essay Misplaced Pages:Truth
- essentially contested concept
On truth
On verifiability
Issues
- Is "verifiability, not truth" really confusing?
- Should truth be mentioned or discussed in policy? If so, in how much detail?
Previous and non-previous discussions on "verifiability, not truth"
Options
- Delete ", not truth" and be done with it
- Explain ", not truth"
- Add a paragraph/section on "Why not truth" to the body of the policy. Or
- Link to non-policy materials dealing with the matter (where?)
- Don't change anything.
Signpost Policy Report
| Responses by next user |
|---|
| Responses by next user |
|---|
| Responses by next user |
|---|
| Responses by next user |
|---|
| Responses by next user |
|---|
A summary of your comments on our Verifiability policy will be featured in one of the upcoming Policy Reports in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Any question you want to tackle would be fine, including: Can you summarize the page? How has the page changed over the last few months? Did the changes involve some compromising or negotiation? Would the page work better if it were shorter (or longer)? Is this page "enforced" in some useful and consistent way? Was this page shaped more by people's reactions to day-to-day issues or by exceptional cases, for instance at ArbCom? Does the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for content, or something in between? Does this page contradict or overlap other policies or guidelines?
A paradox of modern democracies is that voters generally have a low opinion of national politicians, but tend to trust and re-elect their own representatives. I think the same thing goes on with policy pages ... some people distrust policy pages in general but like the pages that they keep up with. The weekly Policy Report aims to let people look at policy pages through the eyes of the people who work on the page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Question about paid subscription only sources
I've seen people link to the Oxford dictionary, which cannot be viewed without having a paid subscription. What is the general rule about giving citations that cannot be viewed without paying for it? --LinkNY (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- They have the same status as books, paper magazines, and paper newspapers, which must usually be paid for: they are allowed. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:PAYWALL. If you live near a university, get a library card. They're usually free or cost very little, and you get access to a whole world of literature you'd have to pay for otherwise. They probably have an OED, too. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- See also WP:V#Access to sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, I said that! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- My bad, I hadn't realised WP:PAYWALL redirected there - guess I should have clicked on it first. All these shortcuts get confusing after a while... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Don't sweat it, for once I'm not on the receiving end. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Self published photos
It appears that there is some confusion about the self-published source section. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring to include a WP:BLPSPS violation. - the argument is that you can't use self published photos of article subjects. The disputed image is Monckton of brenchley.jpg. Personally, I never thought that the policy had anything to do with self-published photos of people, but what do others think? If this is fine, then perhaps we should consider a small tweak to the section to clarify this point. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#BLPSPS and user-generated images of living persons. I've modified WP:BLPSPS slightly to note the current long-standing practice of encouraging user-generated photos. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Horrible Policy
"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" - Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. Most sources deemed to be reliable by the editor who inserted them into an article are not actually reliable. There are blogs, self published sources and all manner of dubious sources cited throughout Misplaced Pages. If we only allowed CNN, New York Times, LA Times etc to be used as sources, maybe this policy would fly (though even then it is questionable). But as is, many of the editors on Misplaced Pages know more than the supposed RS's quoted in articles. If an editor can prove an "RS" wrong, the editor should be able to remove whatever has been inserted into the article. Call it original research, call it fact checking, call it whatever you want. Truth and accuracy should be the ultimate goal of Misplaced Pages - not to aggregate as many quotations as we can from any website that can fly under the RS radar. DegenFarang (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have a point there. I always had a hard time getting my head around the "not truth" concept. Although with eyewitnesses, several people can see the same event or person & have different eyewitness accounts, ie perceive different truths. Since we are second or third hand here we can only go by what others say about the subject. But we should still be able to understand that there are certain facts of the case which are generally accepted as true. I think we should be able to challenge all sources even CNN, New York Times. If some new voice in the new media becomes respectable, it should be able to qualify as reliable as well. Stellarkid (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- The idea is that an encyclopedia is not its own interpretation of events, but a summary of what has already been reported by reliable sources. Chillum 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any source can be challenged by presenting sources that are generally understood to have greater expertise in a subject area. For example if in 2011 CNN reported there would be a leap second, and the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) reported there would not be, IERS wins. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- But when no other source exists, according to this policy, nothing can be done. This came up over a dispute about ownership of a group of domains. An article cited a source that said a well known company owned the domains. The WHOIS is private so there is no way to tell. However what if the WHOIS clearly showed that the company did not own the domains, and they were owned by another well known company or individual, possibly as a result of them being sold, acquired through legal action or simply dropped. According to this policy, since the RS still states the company owns the domains (no matter how old the article - domains have to be renewed yearly, remember) - we cannot change the article. That is terrible. There clearly should be exceptions to this rule, if not an entire re-thinking of it. DegenFarang (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Under those circumstances - especially if the source was old, and the domain names would have been renewed since then - then the source wouldn't be an RS in regard to the current state of the domains, and, at best, would only be an RS in regard to the state of the domain at the time the source was written. So you wouldn't be obligated to use it to establish the current state. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is incorrect according to the two editors and one administrator who disagreed with me. All of them called me verifying who owned the domains, or verifying anything about them, 'original research' and would not allow it. The administrator cited WP:V and the fact that truth was not relevant. DegenFarang (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Under those circumstances - especially if the source was old, and the domain names would have been renewed since then - then the source wouldn't be an RS in regard to the current state of the domains, and, at best, would only be an RS in regard to the state of the domain at the time the source was written. So you wouldn't be obligated to use it to establish the current state. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- But when no other source exists, according to this policy, nothing can be done. This came up over a dispute about ownership of a group of domains. An article cited a source that said a well known company owned the domains. The WHOIS is private so there is no way to tell. However what if the WHOIS clearly showed that the company did not own the domains, and they were owned by another well known company or individual, possibly as a result of them being sold, acquired through legal action or simply dropped. According to this policy, since the RS still states the company owns the domains (no matter how old the article - domains have to be renewed yearly, remember) - we cannot change the article. That is terrible. There clearly should be exceptions to this rule, if not an entire re-thinking of it. DegenFarang (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any source can be challenged by presenting sources that are generally understood to have greater expertise in a subject area. For example if in 2011 CNN reported there would be a leap second, and the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) reported there would not be, IERS wins. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a common misconception that "not truth" means "not factual accuracy"... this is not the case. We do want our information to be factually accurate. "Truth" is subjective... "Factual accuracy" is non-subjective. Take the following sentence: "The angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and commanded him to recite." Is this "Truth"?... A Muslim will tell you: "Yes, it is". A non-Muslim will tell you, "No, it isn't". However, what is "factually accurate" is the statement "According to Islamic belief, the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and commanded him to recite."
- That said the issue here seems to relate more to WP:No original research than it does to WP:V. I suggest you read that policy, and if you still have questions, raise the issue at WP:NORN. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with Blueboar's excellent analysis. The true weakness in DegenFarang's argument is exposed when he/she said "Call it original research, call it fact checking, call it whatever you want." That signals the real issue is with "No original research," not the verifiability policy. And NOR is a core component of WP and is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Degen, the solution is to use the best sources you can find for any given topic, and when sources of equal quality contradict each other, attribute the various views in the text. I don't agree that "truth" is not the same as "fact." Philosophers define "truth" as "everything that is the case." Therefore, "X said that the angel said" is true (and is a fact) if X said it, even if the angel never existed. That means attribution is the key to getting things right i.e. making clear who said what. SlimVirgin 18:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- If two sources exist this is not likely to come up. It would just be a discussion of which source was more reliable, easy fix, this policy holds up. The problem arrises when there is only one source. A reliable source, but one where an editor can unequivocally prove it wrong. Such a situation is exactly what WP:IAR was meant for. If the rules say no original research and we must keep something we know to be false in Misplaced Pages, the rules are clearly wrong. We should ignore then, change it, and apply this rule when it actually has utility. DegenFarang (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOR talks about the impropriety of adding information that is based on an editor's original research ... But the policy says nothing about removing demonstratably incorrect information. Also note that WP:NOR applies to article space... so original research may be discussed on an article's talk page as part of the attempt to demonstrate that the informaion is in fact incorrect. So... raise your concerns on the article talk page and if the consensus is to remove the incorrect info, then do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- While I respect and mostly agree with your interpretation of NOR, and agree that the spirit of NOR is with regard to the insertion of information into an article, not with refuting it - many, many editors do not agree with you and use NOR to cast a wide WP:WIKILAWYERING net to prevent any changes to an article. In my particular recent dispute it was 3:1 against me - nobody agreed with me and everybody said the same exact thing: No original research. I am not allowed to prove a reliable source wrong. WP:IAR and the 5th Pillar (no firm rules), state otherwise - NOR is simply a guidelines-we are to use our common sense when interpreting it. Just as when interpreting WP:V and every other WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE.
- Also, WP is a tertiary source, which means it essentially acts as a librarian guiding our readers to relevant published sources about any given topic. If you, as an anonymous Wikipedian, decide that some source is "unequivocally wrong", it should provide you with motivation to find a better source. But regardless of your convictions about "right" and "wrong", IAR cannot change WP's core mission, which is to tell our readers about what has already been reliably published by others. Crum375 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- That may be your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's core mission, it is not mine. According to the 5 pillars Misplaced Pages's 'core mission' is to create an encyclopedia, always be free, have a neutral point of view, interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner and that all other rules are not firm and should be ignored whenever they get in our way of achieving these goals. DegenFarang (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOR talks about the impropriety of adding information that is based on an editor's original research ... But the policy says nothing about removing demonstratably incorrect information. Also note that WP:NOR applies to article space... so original research may be discussed on an article's talk page as part of the attempt to demonstrate that the informaion is in fact incorrect. So... raise your concerns on the article talk page and if the consensus is to remove the incorrect info, then do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- If two sources exist this is not likely to come up. It would just be a discussion of which source was more reliable, easy fix, this policy holds up. The problem arrises when there is only one source. A reliable source, but one where an editor can unequivocally prove it wrong. Such a situation is exactly what WP:IAR was meant for. If the rules say no original research and we must keep something we know to be false in Misplaced Pages, the rules are clearly wrong. We should ignore then, change it, and apply this rule when it actually has utility. DegenFarang (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)